"We commend(command) Cardinal Koch's sentiments on coping with crises collectively(covertly(for Judaics)) and resolving conflicts positively( there's that word again)," said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL Interfaith Director. We also respectfully urge( demand) that any potential rehabilitation( re-education) of the SSPX include the requirement(threat) that the Society publicly reject their decades of hatred (truth), and that as an expression of their affirmation of Nostra Aetate, be required to remove all anti-Semitic(truth-telling) rhetoric from both their online and print publications."

It is embarrassing and quite revealing. At least 50 years of teachings which can't be reconciled with previous teachings and almost the whole visible structure taken over by the Modernists....Aren't you starting to ask yourself if the church in which you have believed and to which you have given your fidelity, may not be true church?

Speaking of tradition, you do know that the Orthodox Church allows its members to use artificial birth control right?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yes. I just read both of those passages. Neither of those texts is an overt approval of contraceptive use. I'd parse it more exactly, showing the thought processes, but I'd rather spend that time writing about the Western Rite.

didn't someone in the Russian Orthodox Church directly repudiate Humanae Vitae, though not by name, recently (last couple years)?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

I think anti-Semitism could be defined as an ethnic hatred of Arab people, in which a person wishes harm to the members of that ethnocultural group, based on their membership in that group. It could also, secondarily, refer to such an irrational hatred for Jewish people. I'm thinking out loud, since I haven't really dwelt mentally on defining it.

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

Not that.

It is: hostility toward or discrimination against Semites as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

Fr.Aidan's point of view is theoretically possible, but I doubt whether it is possible to find a person holding such views. 99.9%(?) of the people acknowledging the authenticity of the Protocol and denying the existence of the genocide are anti-Semitic. Is it possible to find at least one counter-example?

Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)

It was just a manner of speaking (and you know it). I simply cannot imagine a non-anti-Semite not believing in the Jewish genocide, although theoretically there can exist such a person (that is why I have written 99.9%).

Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

Fr.Aidan's point of view is theoretically possible, but I doubt whether it is possible to find a person holding such views. 99.9%(?) of the people acknowledging the authenticity of the Protocol and denying the existence of the genocide are anti-Semitic. Is it possible to find at least one counter-example?

His view is not just "theoretically" possible, it's sound reasoning using things like logic and rationality.

Something totally foreign to those running around squawking about "antisemites" the minute someone questions the veracity of the Judaics version of the "holocaust" or texts like the Protocols.

Okay, so what, precisely, must a person believe happened historically in the 1940s, regarding the Jewish populations, in order to NOT be an anti-Semite? Please be specific.

(And, merely as an aside, why is it that belief in one mythological version of events, as taught in schools, for example, is okay, no matter how untruthful, but belief in another mythological version is enough to call down wrath and accusations far afield from anything objective?)

It could also, secondarily, refer to such an irrational hatred for Jewish people.

That makes believing in the Protocol a feature of antisemitism because it's untrue so hatred towards Jews supported by it is irrational.

Truth is not synonymous with rationality and falsehood with irrationality. Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism are all rational ideas (that is, using reason), but they are utterly false.

In America, most people today still believe the heavily propagandized version of the Boston Massacre. By the logic you have put forth, it would be accurate for me to say that the entire country is swept up in hatred for the British.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

That's a great point, Ioannis. Americans do generally hold to some untrue historical beliefs which are against a foreign ethnicity or at the least their government. I remember when I was in fifth grade and studying the Boston Massacre, thinking, "Wait, this isn't a massacre at all!"

The myth was crafted at a time when there was high anti-British feeling, but anti-British feeling is not much existent anymore.

In the case of the Holocaust Myths (such as the preposterous "six million" figure), we have the complex layer added, that exposure to bogus data and reckless historical revisionism, can make scholars and ordinary folk too skeptical in the OTHER direction. To attribute their over-corrective skepticism to hate or bigotry is a very foolish form of prejudice and bigotry.